There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras (as was the case with the last two Nolan Batman films). IMAX film has much greater resolution and it's clearly visible, even on the Blu-ray--more so on the IMAX screen. However, in cases where the film wasn't shot in IMAX at all, the difference in quality can vary from almost nothing to significant. Depends on the conversion process. The sound, however, is almost certainly going to be better in an IMAX cinema.

Click to expand...

This is exactly right. Any footage (or movie) not shot with an IMAX camera gets digitally processed and "upscaled" (they call it their DMR technology) to look acceptable on such a big screen.

To me it's hardly worth the premium price for a movie that has no genuine IMAX footage in it, unless all the other theaters around you have really poor sound and/or image quality, which is where IMAX theaters always deliver.

For those that say they don't think IMAX offers much a difference, it is possible you've been to what many refer to as a "lieMAX" theater and not one of the proper more "old school" IMAX venues, many of which are shaped more like a dome, or are at least generally very large, much larger than what you'd see in a conventional multiplex.

Most "lieMAX" theaters are basically just converted standard movie theaters, where they sacrifice a row of seating to put in a larger screen, upgrade the sound, often upgrade the chairs, and put in a bit higher-end digital projector. These theaters are more like the premium upgraded theater experiences such as Cinemark XD and Regal RPX here in the US than a real IMAX theater.

Click to expand...

I went to a purpose built Imax 'dome' which formed part of Birmingham's Science Museum - it was the real deal. It's shut now, which doesn't bother me one bit.

To be honest, there is a small difference but sitting at a distance to view the whole screen it really is very small and in no way worth the extra expenditure and travelling to get to the Imax. I realise that it may be enough for some people, but not for me...

There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras (as was the case with the last two Nolan Batman films). IMAX film has much greater resolution and it's clearly visible, even on the Blu-ray--more so on the IMAX screen. However, in cases where the film wasn't shot in IMAX at all, the difference in quality can vary from almost nothing to significant. Depends on the conversion process. The sound, however, is almost certainly going to be better in an IMAX cinema.

Click to expand...

This is exactly right. Any footage (or movie) not shot with an IMAX camera gets digitally processed and "upscaled" (they call it their DMR technology) to look acceptable on such a big screen.

Click to expand...

DMR isn't always the answer either. Deakins looked at tests and elected to NOT have SKYFALL put through DMR ... instead it is a movie shot at 2.8K, finished at 4K and then transferred to IMAX as-is. It should NOT have worked (sort of like expecting Super8 film to look good at the cinerama dome), but then again, it's Deakins.

There IS a difference IF any of the footage was shot with IMAX cameras (as was the case with the last two Nolan Batman films). IMAX film has much greater resolution and it's clearly visible, even on the Blu-ray--more so on the IMAX screen. However, in cases where the film wasn't shot in IMAX at all, the difference in quality can vary from almost nothing to significant. Depends on the conversion process. The sound, however, is almost certainly going to be better in an IMAX cinema.

Click to expand...

This is exactly right. Any footage (or movie) not shot with an IMAX camera gets digitally processed and "upscaled" (they call it their DMR technology) to look acceptable on such a big screen.

Click to expand...

DMR isn't always the answer either. Deakins looked at tests and elected to NOT have SKYFALL put through DMR ... instead it is a movie shot at 2.8K, finished at 4K and then transferred to IMAX as-is. It should NOT have worked (sort of like expecting Super8 film to look good at the cinerama dome), but then again, it's Deakins.

Click to expand...

I saw Skyfall twice--once in IMAX and once in regular (at a good cinema). I preferred the shot composition for 2.40 but found the IMAX 1.85 surprisingly decent (clearly shot with 1.85 protection in mind). The PQ and, especially, SQ was better at the IMAX presentation (despite my mixed experiences with DMR IMAX conversions).

Does anyone who has actually seen the movie have a report on the quality of the 3D and how it is used in the film?? Otherwise this thread is a not very helpful rehash of opinions that come out every time 3D is mentioned.

Does anyone who has actually seen the movie have a report on the quality of the 3D and how it is used in the film?? Otherwise this thread is a not very helpful rehash of opinions that come out every time 3D is mentioned.

~FS

Click to expand...

Given the responses in this thread, you should know the answer by now.

Everyone has a different opinion. This movie won't change that, so go see it for yourself.

I saw it in 3D and felt they did a good job with it. There are some nice effects that look great in 3D and it didn't have the bugs Avatar had for me, namely structures (e.g. furniture) being cut off and thus looking weird or 3D when it should be 2D (e.g. the picture in the locker). Obviously, you can't completely avoid the first problem but it wasn't so blatant and I only noticed it once.

ETA:
I saw both those movies in real 3D. I can't speak to the differences between the various versions.

I saw it in 3D and felt they did a good job with it. There are some nice effects that look great in 3D and it didn't have the bugs Avatar had for me, namely structures (e.g. furniture) being cut off and thus looking weird or 3D when it should be 2D (e.g. the picture in the locker). Obviously, you can't completely avoid the first problem but it wasn't so blatant and I only noticed it once.

ETA:
I saw both those movies in real 3D. I can't speak to the differences between the various versions.

Click to expand...

My boyfriend described the 3D-effect as very natural/real (as real as you can get with this stuff) compared to the effect depicted in the Jurassic Park 3D trailer before the movie, which he described as cardboard cutouts placed in front of each other.

I'm not a fan of 3D in movies at all, but it was done really well here. I saw Ghost Rider 2 in 3D (not by choice) and it was awful - maybe a bit of extra depth to a few scenes, but virtually no difference to seeing it normally.

There was a huge difference in this, and it looked bloody spectacular while not constantly throwing things in your face. Just little things like ash floating around looked great, and the first warp effect was simply beautiful.

The only bit which bugged me was a bar scene where there were some really blurry objects at the 'front', which was distracting.

The industry standard for theatrical projection is supposed to be around 14 foot-lamberts. Not all cinemas measure up, but the big failing is with 3D projection systems, which come in at around 4 foot-lamberts. Do the math.

IMAX systems offset some loss by using dual projection, which gets that a little better, but it is also covering a larger screen area, so it isn't a huge gain.

Until laser projection and enhanced 4k (something with decent contrast) can be delivered, 3D is going to remain something seen through a glass pretty darn darkly, which kinda runs counter to what a lot of folks want when they see movies.

My boyfriend described the 3D-effect as very natural/real (as real as you can get with this stuff) compared to the effect depicted in the Jurassic Park 3D trailer before the movie, which he described as cardboard cutouts placed in front of each other.

3D is going to remain something seen through a glass pretty darn darkly...

Click to expand...

Well, I accidentally left home wearing prescription sunglasses on a really hot afternoon when ST VI had an invitation-only sneak preview. No chance to return home, so saw the whole thing through tinted lenses. Without really noticing a difference.

But honestly, would a 2D STiD have an even brighter bridge and corridors than in 3D?

3D is going to remain something seen through a glass pretty darn darkly...

Click to expand...

Well, I accidentally left home wearing prescription sunglasses on a really hot afternoon when ST VI had an invitation-only sneak preview. No chance to return home, so saw the whole thing through tinted lenses. Without really noticing a difference.

But honestly, would a 2D STiD have an even brighter bridge and corridors than in 3D?

Click to expand...

Isn't the simplest explanation that the slight darkening cause by the glasses is compensated by a slightly brighter projected image?

If not, people are better protected against those blinding lens-flares.